Ernest Rojo1, Giorgio Stroppa1, Ignacio Sanz-Martin1,2, Oscar Gonzalez-Martín2,3, Antonio Santos Alemany1, José Nart1. 1. Department of Periodontology, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC), Barcelona, Spain. 2. Section of Post-graduate Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 3. Periodontal-Prosthesis Department, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the soft tissue volume gain (VG) around single tooth implants with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) from either the lateral palate (LP) or from the tuberosity area (TA). METHODS:Thirty-two patients with 36 implants with buccal volume deficiencies were randomly assigned to receive SCTG from LP (control group/CG) or TA (test group/TG). Clinical parameters were recorded. VG was evaluated by stereolithography (STL) image superimposition of two intraoral scans (baseline/BL and 3 months after surgery/FU-3). Descriptive analysis was performed for both groups, and for comparisons, Mann-Whitney U test was used. RESULTS: In terms of VG values, no statistically significant differences were observed except for values at 6 and 7 mm apically to the healing abutment which favoured the TG. Mean values were 0.69 ± 0.23 mm for CG while TG obtained 0.79 ± 0.10 mm (p = .64). Regarding Keratinized tissue (KT) width statistical significant differences were found favouring TG, which obtained a gain of 0.83 ± 0.61 mm compared with 0.22 ± 0.48 mm for CG (p = .009). Pink esthetic scores resulted in mean values of 10.07 ± 2.19 for the CG, while TG obtained 9.15 ± 2.34. CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures were effective in increasing soft tissue volume with no statistically significant differences. A longer follow-up is needed to confirm or refute these results.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the soft tissue volume gain (VG) around single tooth implants with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) from either the lateral palate (LP) or from the tuberosity area (TA). METHODS: Thirty-two patients with 36 implants with buccal volume deficiencies were randomly assigned to receive SCTG from LP (control group/CG) or TA (test group/TG). Clinical parameters were recorded. VG was evaluated by stereolithography (STL) image superimposition of two intraoral scans (baseline/BL and 3 months after surgery/FU-3). Descriptive analysis was performed for both groups, and for comparisons, Mann-Whitney U test was used. RESULTS: In terms of VG values, no statistically significant differences were observed except for values at 6 and 7 mm apically to the healing abutment which favoured the TG. Mean values were 0.69 ± 0.23 mm for CG while TG obtained 0.79 ± 0.10 mm (p = .64). Regarding Keratinized tissue (KT) width statistical significant differences were found favouring TG, which obtained a gain of 0.83 ± 0.61 mm compared with 0.22 ± 0.48 mm for CG (p = .009). Pink esthetic scores resulted in mean values of 10.07 ± 2.19 for the CG, while TG obtained 9.15 ± 2.34. CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures were effective in increasing soft tissue volume with no statistically significant differences. A longer follow-up is needed to confirm or refute these results.
Authors: Sara Bakkali; María Rizo-Gorrita; Manuel-María Romero-Ruiz; José Luis Gutiérrez-Pérez; Daniel Torres-Lagares; Maria Ángeles Serrera-Figallo Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Magdalena Bednarz-Tumidajewicz; Aleksandra Sender-Janeczek; Jacek Zborowski; Tomasz Gedrange; Tomasz Konopka; Agata Prylińska-Czyżewska; Elżbieta Dembowska; Wojciech Bednarz Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2020-10-16
Authors: Magdalena Bednarz-Tumidajewicz; Aneta Furtak; Aneta Zakrzewska; Małgorzata Rąpała; Karolina Gerreth; Tomasz Gedrange; Wojciech Bednarz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-27 Impact factor: 4.614